Skip to main content

About this Show

U.S. House of Representatives

News News/Business. Live coverage of House proceedings. New. (Stereo)




San Francisco, CA, USA

Comcast Cable

Channel v24






Us 42, Tom Foley 33, U.s. 26, Iraq 22, Iaea 19, Washington 16, Fbi 12, United States 12, Iran 11, Pakistan 10, America 10, Foley 10, Wilson 9, Heather 8, Clinton 7, Edward Snowden 6, Syria 6, Rouhani 4, Nsa 4, North Korea 4,
Borrow a DVD
of this show
  CSPAN    U.S. House of Representatives    News  News/Business. Live coverage  
   of House proceedings. New. (Stereo)  

    November 1, 2013
    10:00 - 2:01pm EDT  

say yesterday. [video clip] them a we do not know if it is a single religion or single border. they carry bad ideas instead of flowers. al qaeda is a dirty wind that wants to spread worldwide. flowers to to carry expand them at the international level. request. it is not only about iraq. it is about all of the countries in the world that are suffering from terrorism. many internal crisis in the
crisis andproxy proxy wars for regional countries. the most dangerous of these are the wars that are waged on sectarian banners. people are free to choose their religion. no one has the right to interfere. some want to force what they believed on people and force people to think in the way they see fit. this is very dangerous. this kind of ideology and ,entality has its own school its own institute, its own supporters.
we have the right to request the sufferingd, which is -- and to support all of the people that are suffering from al qaeda and the terrorists and allow for people to live in -- to live in peace. the prime minister meeting with obama, we will have that live for you at 1:30 eastern here on c-span. and news that impacts more than 47 million americans who receive food stamps through the supplemental nutrition assistance program. that program is facing a cut as temporary funding through the federal stimulus expires today. congress, which has the authorization to stop the cutback over negotiations over the farm bill, which includes funding for food stamps and the nutrition program -- they face a large device -- large divide
between the house and senate bill. that is $4 billion for the program while the house version/is nearly $40 billion over 10 years. president obama delivered the remarks at a memorial service for house speaker tom foley who passed earlier this week last week at the age of 84. the spoke and need of served in the house of representatives for 30 years, eventually losing reelection in 1995. other speakers include former president bill clinton, house speaker john boehner, and house speaker nancy pelosi.
>> ladies and gentlemen, please stand for the presentation of the colors, the singing of the united states national anthem, and the retiring of the colors.
oh say can you see, by the dawn's early light what so proudly we hailed at the twilight's last gleaming? whose broad stripes and bright stars through the perilous
fight, o'er the ramparts we watched, were so gallantly streaming? and the rockets red glare, the gave proofing in air through the night that our flag was still there. -h say does that star waveled banner yet free andland of the brave. ♪ the
now please be seated. hame ladies and gentlemen, let us begin by acknowledging a great friend of this institution , mrs. heather fully.
thank you for giving us this chance to try to express the debt -- the depth of gratitude we owe to tom. an english poet once wrote that god is ant work of honest man. tom foley was back and more, a leader grounded indecency and , an honor to himself, his family, and this house. he did all the things a public servant should do an friendly did many of them better than the rest. ask any of his peers and they will tell you this. listen to bob dole.
around the time he became called him a man of total integrity, or ask alan simpson who told you that tom can go to hell and make you feel good about going there. and then is fiercely conservative as they come, he said he wished they were republican. there is also this from president george bush. tom foley represented the best in public service and our political system. one class act tipping his hat to another. impressive, as is the sequence of his rise. majority whip, majority leader, and speaker. fairness thate of
will always stand out for me. it is how he held this institution together at a very difficult time and why those that come after us who seek what it knows -- what it means when we use that phrase man of the house or what it means to leave somebody behind should look up the name thomas foley. gather in the old hall, joined by presidents, vice presidents, speakers, so many of our colleagues and diplomats that tom served with to reminisce about this man's service and a toast to his life. the welcome and thank you all. [applause] >> let us pray.
, thef heaven and earth work of your hands is made known in your bountiful creation and in the lives of those who faithfully live in your grace. today we are member the life and work of tom foley, son of the very proud city of spokane. to furtheringt education in his own district, washington cost 50, is testified haganshe ralph and library at gonzaga university, his alma mater. it is named in honor of his , who did something right in raising such a son. tom foley was a modest man whose impact on the public wheel beyond his district far exceeded
any projection of the ego or strength. may we all be inspired by his example to be men and women compelled to improve the life and prospect of our fellow citizens while issuing any honor or glory for ourselves. -- eschewing any honor or glory. do our part to increase understanding and respect across cultural divides. be present with us this day, o god, as we mark his life and remember his legacy. bless this gathering and comfort us as we comfort one another in remembering a great american and a genuinely good man. amen.
>> tom foley was my friend, mentor, and colleague in the house of representatives. i first met him at the university of washington law school in 1965 during his freshman term. he was a brilliant young man with a warm and friendly smile. it was his intellect and love for this country that made him an outstanding leader. he served as chairman of the house agriculture committee and worked hard bringing these two issues together allowing chairman foley to have support in the house for both. he believed in and practiced ability and bipartisanship. his view was after the elections were over, democrats and republicans should work together to deal with a national legislative agenda. seeing his strong leadership qualities and the belief in getting things done for the american people, speaker tip o'neill appointed him to be the with and he was unanimously elected to be our majority leader and then our speaker in 1989. he worked closely with bob
michael and they remain great friends after they left congress. later, president clinton named speaker foley to be our ambassador to japan. as a staffer to war and, i worked with him on the spokane world's in the created traumatic change for the largest city in the fifth district. tom was so proud to represent the people of the fifth are congressional district and he always thought this was his most important responsibility. it was a great honor for me that he supported me and my campaign. i was lucky to receive his support as a member of the house and i will always thank him for being such a good mentor. we will always remember the legacy of tom foley. he believed in the congress and he believed this institution
could produce positive results for the american people. his loving wife, heather, supported him during his career and to grant full care of him during his long illness. may god bless you, heather, and the entire foley family. [applause] >> good afternoon. i'm jim mcdermott, a house member from washington's seventh , mostly seattle. i knew tom foley for more than 40 years and throughout that time, he was a wonderful friend and a sage mentor. in 1971 when i was a freshman state legislator, he took me out to dinner in seattle and suggested i would run for congress. i was pleased for his regard of my career, but i knew better since i was a freshman
legislator so i rejected it and ran for governor. i got creamed. [laughter] tom never said a word. i return to the legislature determined to learn as much as i could about the realities of governing effectively and the challenges of legislating well. when i finally ran for congress, he was majority leader of the house. as i arrived for his first term in 1989, tom was about to become speaker. i know now that he was about to become the last speaker of the whole house. he believed that the speaker was the speaker for the whole house and he lived that to his very core. today, many will note tom's devotion to the house of representatives and his knowledge of the history of this organization. you learn in enormous amounts and he appreciated the role of the house and our balanced structure of government and he
knew well the challenge of maintaining that fragile balance. when he assumed his speakership, he brought to it a scholars depth of understanding and a disciple's passion. he led the house with fairness and a style of leadership we have not seen and we have recently looked for, but have not seen, what he was able to do with both sides. he understood the house could not perform its constitutional function without evenhandedness and respecting the role of minority. tom was a democrat -- no question about it. he was very clear. he believed that the legitimacy and the value of government. the government's duty was to improve the lives of americans and he saw it as a noble obligation and worthy of one's best efforts at any time. when he was speaker, he abandoned none of these principles.
he added a very nuanced appreciation to the role of speaker and his certainty that it required not a flame throwing partisan but a measured, study pilot and lit by a match for his love of the house. his district was a sprawling swath of eastern washington yet is is full of essentially conservative voters and they reelected him for 30 years. they took an urban international list and send him back again and again. they did so and it was a persistent affirmation of his unshakable integrity, superb legislative skills, and his deep connection for the people of the fifth. he always started his speech with, my highest honor was to be elected congressman from the fifth district. the voters recognized him as a great american. we share a sense of rye irish
humor, but his charm and wit were all his own. he was an extraordinary person and in your replaceable friend. i'm grateful to have known him. rest in peace. [applause] >> mrs. foley, bless you. there was a great minister, scholar, abolitionist who lived in new england in the 19th century. his name was james freeman clarke and he once made the statement. a politician, he said, thinks
only of the next election. a statesman thinks of the next generation. speaker tom foley was a true statesman. he believed it was an honor to serve the public good and he brought respect for the dignity of our democracy and the inspiration of our mandate as a nation to every moment of his service. he believed it was our calling as members of congress to do what we could to preserve and help create a more perfect union that has been in the making for almost 300 years. and all of my years knowing speaker foley and seeing him on the floor, i never heard this man, this good man, speak a bad
word about anyone. i just have a feeling that he was one who believes. if you cannot say anything good about someone, don't say anything at all. as a leader, he believed he should build and not tear down. reconcile, not divide. he stood for the principles of the diplomacy and mutual respect even toward his opposition. he did not subscribe to the politics of personal destruction . he was a representative of the great state of washington, as a legislator, bigger than his own personal values and ambition. he wanted to leave a record of accomplishment that would have a lasting impact on our society for generations to come.
when he left the speakers chair, it was the end of an era in our history. maybe, just maybe, his passing at this moment in our history is just an eloquent reminder of one simple truth that no leader is and greater than the cause he serves and when our lives are over, we will be remembered not for fame nor fortune but for how we helped or harmed the dignity of all human kind. i will never forget this prince of a man who lead by example and struggled to turn the tide of partisanship with structured debate.
every leader within politics or in larger society, every leader in america, to do well, to take a page from tom foley possible. -- tom foley's book. [applause] >> heather, mr. president, mr. president, mr. vice president, mr. vice president, how wonderful than speaker foley has two presidents, two vice presidents, and the good wishes of the president george herbert walker bush. he could never have probably imagine that when he came to the
floor on the first day to make his first floor speech. he said, public service is a free gift of a free people and a challenge for all of us in public life to do it we can to her make our service useful for those who have sent us here. few the fill that charge with more courage, more stability than he. he was the first speaker to hail from west of the rocky mountains. he brought a fresh perspective and a powerful voice to open the doors of leadership to members who represent the diversity of their country. his first campaign was legendary in its civility. before the election was even over, his opponent released a
statement calling the campaign the cleanest he had ever seen that in office. in that spirit, he made campaign finance reform a priority sunday legislation to the president's desk that would ensure our democracy was a government of, by, and for the people. we could not override the president's veto, but his commitment to a just democracy serves as a testament to this day. known for his ability to build consensus, speaker foley never compromised on the conviction to do right by the american people. when tragedy struck at the fairchild air force base in his district, this longtime defender of gun rights saw the need for sensible non-violence prevention laws. the speaker foley brought that ill to the floor and helped enact the ban knowing that it
would not be well received in his district. but he did what he believed and he did it with courage. he matched that dedication with principle and courage with a gift for diplomacy. nearly 20 years ago, i was privileged to attend a special dinner to honor speaker foley for his leadership. as fate would have it hama that was the day that you announce that you are going to grant a temporary visa to gerry adams. just a coincidence. needless to say, the mood of the evening was tense and speaker foley with this characteristic grace, the reason why the matter how disconcerting, it was crucial to delivering an ever elusive peace to northern ireland.
that remarkable ability to build bridges across a great divide would serve him well as speaker in later as ambassador to japan, something he took great ride in, as i know you did mr. vice president. his judgment was impeccable and was respect it and many of us benefited from it. a for me in september 2008, ifoi will attended a g8 meeting of heads of parliament, speakers, whatever they are called and all participants were invited to lay a wreath at the horrific that peace memorial -- hiroshima peace memorial. i called speaker foley of vice president mondale to say what i should do. they said, you must participate. you will be the highest ranking american official to lay a wreath at the memorial.
you cannot say no. that may seem easy now, but at the time, that was very strong judgment. such is the nature of a great man who believed above all for the purpose of public service that it is about respect. diplomat, leader, speaker, tom foley was the quintessential champion of the common good. he spoke for the house he led and the country he so loved. in his farewell speech to the house he said, congress is the place where we come together to speak the voices of america and it is the voice that is sound to echo through the world. heather, i hope it's a comfort to you that so many people mourn your loss through the world and are praying for you at this sad
time. to you and the foley family, thank you for sharing tom with a grateful nation. his voice will forever echo in our hearts to all who strive to make a difference in public service. as we count our blessings, we know that god truly blessed america with the life and leadership of speaker, ambassador, leader, tom foley. [applause] >> thank you all for being here. heather, we honor you today. you were there all along guiding and accompanying tom across all of the peaks and valleys right to the end.
we thank you for your spirit, your generosity, and your example. it enlivens this house, as well as your own, for many years. welcome back. given tom's famous personality it is surprising he decided to run for congress in the first place. he did it in a moment of anger. the day was july 16, 1964 and the beatles had just returned to liverpool after their first u.s. tour. president johnson had recently signed the civil rights act and was on his way to a landslide
victory against barry goldwater that november. 35-year-old tom foley was having lunch at the spokane club in downtown. a gifted lawyer from a prominent local family and a trusted aide, he mentioned to the guys that he was thinking seriously about running for congress, not this time, but the next time around. at which point to one of his lunch companions bluntly dismissed the idea out of hand. he said, you would never do it. you are like all young people. you think the party is going to come to you with a tiffany trade and an engraved card and say, please. we humbly beg you. run for congress. that is not the way it happens. people get to congress by wanting to run. you have excuses this year and you have excuses next year.
and the year after that. tom did not like this piece of armchair psychology one bit and he was determined to prove them wrong so he got up from the table and walked across the hall, stuffed himself into a phone booth and called western union. within minutes, a telegram had been sent to senator jackson's saying that he adjust resigned his job and was headed to olympia for filing to run. then he called his bank and found out he did not have any money. [laughter] his cousin hank had to loan him the filing fee. in the filing deadline was the next day. tom had no cash, no plans, and virtually no time. but he had the smarts. he had a sterling reputation. he had the backing of senator
jackson and now he has the motivation. and he did it. for the next three decades, he would devote his life to the people of eastern washington's fifth congressional district with grace, intelligence, wit, and a profound respect for others including his political adversaries and an abiding gratitude for the trust and confidence of the people he was elected to serve from walla walla to northport, the week country, timber towns -- wheat country. tom always looked the part. they called him the senator at gonzaga. if most were asked to conjure up the image of a congressman, the man they would like to see would be him. to most people, it seems as
though he was born to serve and a remarkable 30 year congressional career, he proven they were right. he proved that he did not just look the part but he knew the part. and he played well. tom and i were not on the same side for most issues. his faith in government was a little more robust they are in mind we shared a deep respect and the belief that working for the other side, particularly in a time of divided government, enables you to achieve some good for the nation. that kind of comedy is sometimes viewed as old-fashioned around here. that's never been true. the parties have always disagreed but it has not kept them from working together time to time to solve problems that we all recognize. tom knew that. he practiced it.
he took flak from time to time for being a little too friendly with republicans but i don't think he ever doubted the wisdom of his approach, even in defeat. as he often said, the first vote you need to earn is your own. it was a principle that served him very well. it is one that i think says a lot about the legacy of the gentleman from spokane. we honor his service and his memory. may we draw all of the right lessons from both. [applause]
>> for four years i served in the house with speaker tom foley during the time i served, he was the majority with. -- whip. i also served with the man who would succeed him, newt gingrich. we do not agree on too much, but when he wrote in last week's "time" magazine that tom foley was a pragmatic man, a person of great integrity, and a patriot, i could not agree more. this is what he wrote, and i quote. i have nothing a phone -- but fond memories. we worked together when we could, competed when we had to. i, too, have fond memories of my time serving in the house with tom foley. i offer my condolences to
heather who, as we all know, has always been tremendous, always there able to help us. she was his greatest influence politically in his whole life. tom learned his practical style of politics from his mentors who are both from the state of washington. speaker foley gained his pragmatism as a member and then chairman of the house agriculture committee, one of the chambers most of bipartisan committees. i credit much of his down to earth demeanor to his western wringing. he was the first speaker of the house of representatives to be born west of the rocky mountains.
he cut an imposing figure. he was a big man physically with this wonderful smile and great voice. he was always gracious to young members, like me. one day, i reflect back, as we get a little older you cannot see like you used to. somehow he did not bring his reading glasses and he was desperate. he could not see. i was the first person he saw and he said, find me sunglasses. i don't care where you get them. i wanted to adhere to his wishes so i did not care. someone left them lying on a desk and i grabbed them. he was so happy to get those glasses. as it happens to all of us, he just could not see. it was my honor and pleasure to find him some glasses to help him see that day.
but visions where the country needed to go, he always saw clearly. [applause] ? eternal father whose arm hath born the restless wave who did the mighty ocean tell it's all apointed limits keep o, hear us when we cry to thee
for those in peril on the sea ? ? creator, father, who first breathed in us a life that we received by power of thy breath restore the ill and the wounds of war bless those who give their healing care that life and laughter all my share ? ? o trinity of love of power my family shield in danger's hour from rock and tempest, fire and
foe protect us where all e'er we go the seldom more shall rise to thee glad in the brave from land and sea ? >> hello. president clinton, president obama, all of my fellow
colleagues, friends of tom, all of you. it was my good fortune to have visited him with my former right-hand man a few days before tom died. i'm so grateful, heather, for making that visit possible. we thought it was going to be just a visit of a couple minutes and it ended up that we were speaking for an hour about the days gone by, not unlike so many others, we had a relationship of more than 40 years. we were both able to say our piece with open-mindedness and most of all, trust. as i said in an article in "the post" the other day, when tom
became speaker, he suggested we come together once a week to talk over the affairs of the house one week in my office, the next in his. we disagreed over policy and adjusted with each other politically, the meetings were highly is because underlying them was the faith and trust we had in each other. we could talk about anything knowing that our discussions would remain private unless we decided otherwise. i don't think there's anything more important than the relationship between political leaders than trust. never was that bond tested more than it was in january 1991 when i implored tom to bring to the house floor a resolution that steve zoeller's and i had introduced to ask then president
bush to engage in military action in operation desert storm to drive saddam hussein out of kuwait. i was convinced that tom opposed military intervention. i know that a good many of his caucus were strongly opposed as well. it was an exercise in political courage and personal decency for tom to agree to bring the resolution up for an open debate and record a vote under those circumstances. but he did. we had one of the most spirited but civil and informative debates in which i have been privileged to participate in all of my 38 years in congress. we prevailed in the final outcome that day but i would
have been proud of the house and the speaker regardless because the house demonstrated to the world that it was truly a deliberative and democratic a- day. tom and i always struggled to find common ground when there were no issues upon which we could not agree, we could at least use common courtesy and the way we conducted our politics. that is not just good manners. it's good politics. win, lose, or compromise, the way we argue can be as important in the long run as the decisions we reach. i so admire tom's grace and facility -- civility. i admire his understanding and culture of the institution. he was so dedicated to its preservation and affection. tom was chosen to lead the house in a very difficult time and through it all, he was a gentleman of the house, a fair
and honest broker, a worthy adversary. maybe we both knew that our days were numbered. we were too conditioned by our personal and political upbringing to assume that we had the market cornered on political principle or partisan superiority. we knew that there would always be a distinction and separation between campaigning for office and serving an office. we were, i guess, pupils of the old school. tom knew that a house member has three essential jobs -- to deliberate, to debate, and to be his. he knew that if we wanted to be effective in the house, you cannot go around shouting your principles. you have to subject them to the test of open debate against those who do not share those principles.
true debate is not possible unless the golden rule is applied which simply means that you treat your fellow members the way you, your self, want to be treated. tom believed in that rule and he practiced it. from the day he came to the house and all during his time as speaker of the house, tom foley was proud to be a member of this house. i share that deep fried in this great institution -- i share that deep pride, and i guess that's one reason we were able to work together. we saw the house not as a necessary evil that is one of the great creations of a free people. on our last days in congress, on november 29, 1994, tom did me the great honor of inviting me
to the speaker's podium to preside over the house while he gave his farewell remarks from the well. incidentally, it was the first time in 40 years a republican had been on that roster. when we stood side-by-side on the podium that last day of the 103rd congress, we knew that we were icons, i guess, of a bygone era. as we visited for the last time, 20 years later, i think we felt good about that. we both took great pride in knowing we have made things happen, that we found good ways to solve difficult problems and make the house a working institution. now, tom takes his place among the great public servants immortalized in this hollow statues. he is most worthy of a presence here.
i know because of his great love of this institution that his spirit will dwell here forever. i only hope that the legislators who now walk through here each day so consumed by the here and now will feel his spirit, learn from it, and be humbled by it. that's all i have to say in honor of my dear friend tom foley. [applause]
>> mr. michel may be 90 years old, but he has the spirit of a man half his age and the wisdom of 110 times his age. we thank him for those remarks. -- and the wisdom of one 10 times his age. [applause] heather, mr. speaker, i thank you for giving those of us who worked with and cared about tom the chance to be here today.
thank you, heather, for all you did to make his work possible and better. mr. president, thank you for being here. mice president, vice president mondale, and all who have spoken before me. -- vice president, vice president mondale. shortly after becoming president, i invited them to come to arkansas to tell me everything i did not know that was about to happen to me. tom foley then proceeded to do that in that calm, satirical way. he told me not to be walled -- l ulled by bob michel's personality.
he told me not to be intimidated by your bellicosity but in the end we would find a way to do business into turned out to be right about both things. his leadership made possible things that matter to me a lot. being president is a matter of trying to do what he promised to do when you ran, trying to respond to those legitimate impulses coming out of the political system across the range, and trying to deal with the unanticipated developments. if you ignore any of them, you cannot prevail. if you cannot work with the congress, it's very difficult. tom foley, therefore, was pivotal. in our landslide victory for my economic land and deficit
reduction, because we won by one vote and it was made possible by the speaker and everyone else who voted for it. but also we just celebrated the 20th anniversary of the family medical leave law, the 20th anniversary of americorps that are now part of the pillars of our sense of common citizenship. i've had republicans and democrats, to tell me what a difference the family leave law meant for them. young people who belong to both political parties who believe in citizen service and participated in americorps, he helped make those things possible, too. one of the things that i always appreciated about him, and marveled about, was how he could be brutally honest in the kindest way.
it is true, as leader pelosi said, he had a conversion of sorts on the whole question of assault weapons because of an experience that he had, but he was very clearheaded. he told me when we succeeded, in no small measure thanks to the leadership of then senator biden , and putting the assault weapons ban back in the bill that you could leave this in here but there will be a lot of blood on the floor if this passes. many of us will not survive. i will never forget the argument i had with him. i said, tom, i'm from arkansas and both of my senators voted for this. he said, and four years, it's the same thing with your economic lame. people will see that it works and people will see that they did not lose their guns and they still got to defend their homes,
go hunting, but we all have to run before they know any of that. we have enough uncertainty now. if you put this in there, there will be a lot of carnage. and i thought he was wrong but he was right. he lost that election by 4000 votes. i'd be a wealthy man if i had a dollar for every time in the last 20 years i have found my mind drawn to that conversation. was it worth his public service? we had eight years of declining violent crime for the first time in the history of the country. we did prove that it did not interfere with people's second amendment rights. the price is high. what i want to tell you is,
appropriate today, that tom foley, as nice as he was an civil as he was and as much as he loved his colleague of both parties, he was one tough guy. this is a man who took up martial arts in the 60's. now that i am there, i respected even more. [laughter] he rests the broken bones and torn ligament's and everything. he was tough and he walked clear eyed into the house and we put those votes together in the bill past. those of us who supported at least think america is much better off as a result. but he knew even in the spirit of bipartisan compromise, making difficult decisions was inevitable and not free.
he paid the price. before i came here, i read all the letters we wrote to each other. that is a great thing about having a library. somebody will dig that stuff up. [laughter] here is the one that means the most to me. it says the most about him. he loved being in the house. it really hurts if you are the speaker. he knew his district. it turned out way better than i did. at least 4000 votes better. michael talked about what they did on november 29, 1994. this letter was written to me on november 16, 1994.
signed by tom foley and bob michael and newt gingrich. asking that the administration sent him the lame-duck session of congress, the legislation to implement the general agreement, which established the world trade order -- which i believe has played a major role in lifting more people out of -- out of poverty. he was dying inside, heartbroken, and he still showed up for work. he still believed the purpose of political service was to get the show on the road. i will never forget this letter as long as i live. tom foley had lost his seat in a district he loved.
i talked to him about the wrinkles and curse of that district i do not know how many times. but he was doing his job. i asked him to go to japan, just as i half the vice president to go to japan, for a very simple reason. they became one of our greatest allies and one of the greatest forces for democracy, security, freedom, and growth in the world. they had a tough time in the 1990's. i always believed the rest of the world was underestimating the japanese people, their brilliance, creativity, technology, resilience, and i wanted them to know america still cared. when tom foley was there, they knew america cared.
i leave you with this. i think they had a good time and they enjoyed it. i know he did. there were seven japanese prime ministers in my eight years as there were seven japanese prime ministers in my eight years as president. we are not the only people that have turmoil. the best politician was the prime minister. tragically, as a young man, he had a stroke. he endured for 43 days after his stroke. when he died, in a busy world full of things to do, it was something an anti-climax. i was appalled than i was the only leader of a major country to come to his funeral. i flew to japan so i can go. i liked him and admired him and thought he had set forth a
direction that gave japan the best chance they had to succeed until he took office. at the end of the funeral, young japanese women appeared with flowers. his ashes were on a high wall totally made of flowers of the rising sun. everyone there went up and bowed to his ashes and put a flower on the table until thousands of flowers were there, creating a great cloud. he was succeeded as prime minister by one of his close allies and the allies said this. tom foley and i stayed there for hours and then we went home and watched the rest of it on television until every person had put their flower there. a testimony to the importance of citizenship.
and believing in the institutions of your country. the current prime minister said this of his friend. i wonder if he ever dreamed. if he did, i wonder what his dreams were. whatever they were, i hope they all have now come true. i did not know tom foley well enough to know if he ever dreamed or if he did, what he dreamed. i know when he sat with me that day and watched the sacred experience, i saw the well of common humanity we all share across all of our interesting differences. he gave his life to our country. i hope his dreams have all come true. [applause]
>> to heather and the foley family, to tom's colleagues and friends, president clinton, president mondale, former speakers, and those who preceded me, i am honored to join you today to remember a man who embodied the virtues of devotion and respect. for the institution that he led,
for the colleagues that he served alongside, and, most importantly, for the citizens he had the honor to represent. i did not have the privilege of knowing tom personally. i admired him from afar. but like millions of americans, i benefit from his legacy. thanks to tom, more children get a head start on success, in school, and in life. more seniors receive better health care. more families breathe easier because they know their country will be there for them in times of need. all of them, all of us, are indebted to the towering man. i think, in listening to the wonderful memories that have been shared, we get a sense of this man.
we recognize his humility. he often attributed much of his success to good luck. he may have had a point. leader mcconnell told the story about his first race. there were a couple of details that got left out. on the way to olympia to file the paperwork for his first congressional campaign, apparently tom blew out a tire. so he and some friends hitchhiked to a service station to get it fixed. as they approached the outskirts of the city, they ran out of gas. so they pushed the car up the hill, coasting into town just before the deadline. tom went on to win the race by a resounding 54 votes. there is no question there may have been some luck of the irish operating when it came to tom
foley, as well as incredible stamina. what led him to make history as the first speaker of the house from west of the rockies was not luck. it was his hard work. his deep integrity. and his powerful intellect. as as bob michael so eloquently and movingly stated, his ability to find common ground with his colleagues across the aisle. it was his personal decency that helped him bring stability and order to a congress that demanded both, and still does. it brings me to a final point. at a time when our political system can seem more polarized and more divided than ever before, it can be tempting to see the possibility of
bipartisan progress as a thing of the past. old school, as bob said. it can be tempting to wonder if we still have room for leaders like tom, whether the environment, the media, the way districts are drawn, the pressures that those of us in elected office are under somehow preclude the possibility of that brand of leadership. well, i believe we have to find our way back there. now, more than ever. america needs public servants who are willing to place problem-solving ahead of politics. as the letter that president clinton held up indicates, the
history of the crime bill shows. we are sent here to do what is right. sometimes, doing what is right is hard. it is not free. and yet, that is the measure of leadership. it is important for us who feel the responsibility to fight for a cause, to recognize our cause is not advanced if we cannot also try to achieve compromise. the same way our founders sought it as a vital part of our democracy. the very thing that makes our system of self-government possible. that is what tom foley believed. that is what he embodied. that is the legacy that shines brightly today. on the last day he presided as
speaker, he described what it should feel like to serve the american people in this city. he spoke about coming to work in the morning and catching a glimpse of the capitol. he said it ought to give anyone a thrill, a sense not only of personal satisfaction, but very deep gratitude to our constituents, for the honor of letting us represent them. tom never lost that sense of wonder. as i read that passage, what he wrote, the first time i visited capitol hill, tom was speaker. i was a very young man. i was doing community work. i remember seeing the capital and having the same sense of
wonder. i think now about tom foley being here, doing that work, and inspiring what ultimately might have led me to be interested in public service, as well. when we are standing outside these magnificent buildings, we have the sense of wonder and hope. sometimes, the longer you are here, the harder it is to hang onto that. yet, tom foley never lost it. he never lost the sense of wonder and the sense of gratitude. what a privilege. that he felt it was to serve. he never forgot why he came here. on behalf of this nation and the state and the citizens that he loved and respected so much.
as a country, we have to be grateful to him. to heather and the people of great state of washington, thank you so much for sharing tom with us. god bless tom foley. god bless america. [applause] >> mr. president, and to all of our speakers, thank you for your testimonials. i would like to ask leader pelosi to join me as we
present mrs. foley with a flag flown over the capitol on the day of the speaker'staffing, and a copy of house resolution 383, expressing the house's sincerest condolences. -- speaker's passing, and a copy of house resolution 383, expressing the house's sincerest condolences. >> thank you, president obama,
and president clinton. i so appreciate your coming to honor and celebrate tom's life. thank you, norman dicks, and jim mcdermott. let me acknowledge congressman lewis and former congressman and republican leader bob michael, who both have always been great friends to tom and me. of course, i thank senator harry reid and senator mitch mcconnell for traveling a long way from the senate to the house. [laughter] to remember my husband. also, i want to thank the special envoy from japan.
anderson, plus, the diplomatic delegations, for coming. i owe a special debt of gratitude to speaker boehner for making this memorial service possible. without his caring and competent staff, this event would not have happened. when my husband was speaker, we had about one person who handled this kind of work. the speaker has been most gracious and helpful and i applaud him for that. i want to say a few words about my husband. as you probably know, i work for -- worked for him for years as an unpaid staffer. i did not plan to do in this when i married him in 1968.
i was sort of wooed in. -- in to be a volunteer for a little while. and i remained for the full time he was here. i should say i stayed here unpaid and it was a great adventure. every time i thought of leaving, he would suddenly assume a new position. it was a great good fortune of my life to be along for the ride and see what happened next. early on, i discovered my husband was a wonderful teacher. david has written the nicest note about this. i think he was right on mark. i can look back and say that his father taught him about
fairness, patience, and all the virtues everyone has mentioned today. there was a story that tom's father, who was a superior court judge, could sentence you to death and you would thank him. but when i think back, and what i thought at the time, is i am not sure where his good judgment came from, how he understood the limits of power, and there are enormous limits to power, that we must work together and how much courage he often displayed when defending what he believed was right. some of it must have been the result of his jesuit education and his experience as a debater.
a friend of his is here who knew him and debated with him and told me that at 16, he was just a wonderful, great man, even though he was just a young man at that time. i never knew, really, exactly why he always knew the right thing to say and do. perhaps it was his honesty and his resolve to keep his word. i do not know. i think back on our almost 45 years together and i think of the long meetings that perhaps best displayed his ability to reason with people. one of them was in the late 1960's. he had accepted the challenge of a man whose name i think was virgil.
virgil was opposed to any form of gun control. he claimed tom was for every form of gun control. tom agreed to appear at this forum at this local high school. virgil ran ads in the newspapers, "i was able to attract -- i think he also wrote on radio and television -- an audience of about 700 people, tom stood on the stage 45.5 hours and answered all of the allegations with the reasons i never would have thought of.
there were bumper stickers waved about the hungarians limited their guns, and that's why they lost their freedom. i can remember him saying he was not for repealing laws that limited a citizens' use of canons and rockets, that he did not think you were entitled to have a missile silo right there in the backyard of your house. at first, the audience was hostile. at the end, a fatal mistake was made. gunning asked everyone to stand up and then he pleaded for money to pay for the ads. [laughter] people who were already standing, they just walked out. i have spent a good deal of my life overseas at this time.
i was mesmerized to watch this. it was not like dealing with the pakistanis, or going to school there, were living in greece or egypt as i had done. it was something very different. i learned over the years, and i was able to see tom, reasons with all kinds of people and with all kinds of interesting arguments. you could always see another side to something. i got to see him in action with presidents and politicians on both sides of the house and both sides of the capitol. he was somehow able to walk others through their demands and show them where they were asking too much and where they might be right.
he was not afraid to take a position that a constituent or colleague might oppose and explain why. i can remember the power administrator who came to get more goodies, to be told it was time the pacific northwest perhaps limited its demands and look in other directions to get more power. i am sure they are still here asking for it, but -- anyway. at the time, they agreed. he was a man of principle not afraid to compromise. he believed there was honor in compromising. when he nearly lost the election in 1980, he did not retreat to
the life he enjoyed as chairman of the house of agriculture committee, as many would have done. instead, he became democratic whip and started his climb up the leadership, the latter. i was appalled. i have gotten used to his position as chairman, and i was on good terms with the staff. suddenly, all of these people were going to lose their jobs. we could not take all of them with us to the with office. the budget was not that large. so, i got used to it. then he moved up the ladder again and again. it would have been the easy thing to stay as chairman of the agriculture committee. i should have known this
extraordinary man was destined for extraordinary things. i am afraid i have kept you too long. thank you so much for coming to salute the life of a great man. thank you. [applause] >> dear lord, as we close our time together, send your spirit of peace and consolation upon us, who mourn the loss of the honorable former speaker of the
house, tom foley. he was a glowing example of an icon of what it means to be a man for others. his decades of service to his home state of washington and to our great nation, will be long appreciated by those whose lives are forever blessed by his life work and dedication. may your angels come to greet our beloved tom and those who mourn him here be consoled with the knowledge that for those who love you, everything is turned to good. amen. >> ladies and gentlemen, please be seated until the official party and family have departed.
♪ [captioning performed by the national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2013]
>> is a tough time for nsa. we say, it is much more important for this country that we defend this nation and take than it is to give up a program that would result in this nation being attacked. we would rather be here in front of you today, telling you why we
defended these programs, then having given them up and have our nation or our allies be attacked and people killed. >> this weekend on c-span, intelligence officials defend the nsa surveillance programs. 10:00 a.m.rning at eastern. live sunday on c-span 2. kelly.lls for kitty on c-span 3 "american history tv," each weekend in november, remembering john f. kennedy. eyewitness accounts. john foster dulles had recently died when that super airport out of chantilly, virginia was being built.
president eisenhower announced the airport would be named dulles airport. when kennedy took over, he did not want to name that for a crusty old warrior. finally, the decision was made to name it after dulles. you can still see the clip of kennedy opening the airport with eisenhower there and allen dulles there. he pulls back a curtain. behind the curtain is this giant bust of john foster dulles. that bust stands in the middle of this big airport. i went to see it while i was writing this book, and i could not find it. i started asking the security guards, where is the big bust of dulles? no one had even heard of it. it was a long process. the washington airport wasority, thanks to them, i able to find out that it is in a closed conference room opposite baggage room number three. i find this a wonderful metaphor
for how the dulles brothers, who at one time exercised earth shattering power and were able to make and break governments, have now been effectively forgotten and airbrushed out of our entire history. >> with john foster heading state and allen at cia, the dulles brothers led both overt and covert operations for a good portion of the cold war. find out why the ramifications can still be felt 60 years later inzer,tephen cancer -- k sunday night at 8:00 on c-span's "q&a." scaffolding onhe the washington monument will be coming down as repairs wrap up at the white house today. president obama and the iraqi prime minister our meeting this afternoon. the two leaders expected to talk about security concerns within iraq, as sectarian violence has flared. we will hear more from the white
house at 1:30 eastern, and have the briefing for you on c-span. we will take you live to the wilson center in washington for a discussion with the head of the international atomic energy agency. will be talking about monitoring of nuclear programs, and steps they're taking to promote the peaceful use of energy. the discussion should get underway shortly.
we are waiting at the wilson center to hear from the head of the international atomic energy talkingyukiya amano about the monitoring of nuclear programs. he will be introduced by the president and ceo of the wilson center. it could underway -- it should get underway shortly here. live coverage here on c-span.
.> good morning welcome to the wilson center. a special welcome to yukiya amano of the international atomic energy agency. the executive vice president. modern technology kept jane harman on the tarmac in new york city, or rather, laguardia airport, for over two hours this morning. she has just landed and will be here shortly. closing comment.
she apologizes, but we wanted to get started. the wilson center is a public- private institution created by an act of congress and serves as the official, national memorial to the 28th president. issues throughl independent research, open dialogue, and actionable ideas. we seek to provide safe political space for addressing key public policy issues. nuclear proliferation issues international history project is a global network of individuals and institutions engaged in the study of international nuclear history through archival documents, oral history, interviews, and other impure goal sources. sources.n -- empirical the wilson center has followed the nuclear talks on iran
especially closely, and recently had two international ground troop briefings on these talks, conversations with experts in the field. we are very proud to have michael adler on the podium here is a senior scholar at the wilson center. was the correspondent in ea for covering the ia years. michael will moderate today's session. is here to help us understand the iaea, help us understand how it is helping preserve the nuclear nonproliferation treaty's grand bargain. he is uniquely qualified to do so. his career spans 36 years in the japanese foreign ministry, and he has served with the iaea
since the 1990's. he played a key role in securing an agreement should to -- to shut down chernobyl's unit number three as chair of the g7 nuclear safety roup in the year 2000 -- group in the year 2000. please join me in welcoming director general amano. amano willneral speak briefly, and then michael adler will have a dialogue for our guest, preserving have the time for your questions. thank you for coming to the wilson center this morning. director general? [applause] good morning, everyone. me toa great pleasure to
be invited and given the opportunity to speak to you. i had meetings with some high u.s. officials yesterday, and meet i'm delighted to michael again, whom i know very well, and michael knows very well about the iaea. four years have passed since i joined the iaea in 2009. today i would like to explain a little bit about the activities of the iaea. known as a nuclear watchdog, especially in media. i would like to say that the activity is much more extensive than a nuclear watchdog.
we are a very unique stakeholder . for example, cancer is a very serious problem in developing countries. some people think that cancer is a problem in developed countries. deaths by cancer occur in developing countries. in africa do not radio nuclear therapy machines in their country. too come to the clinic late, and it is not possible to provide life-saving treatment. this is very unfair. i am insisting that cancer
control in developing countries should be established as a global health agenda. saveuclear technology can lives in developing countries. knows that food shortage will be a serious problem. here, too, nuclear technology acceleratinge by .lant mutation we can prolong the shelf life of food, or we can eliminate the toxicity of the food. byer can be better managed analyzing the aquifer by using nuclear technology. the iaea has a huge project in
to bettern countries understand the water resource. theseeep on talking about things, it becomes endless. i stop here. has thet is that iaea technology. we have the function. we encourage people to use it safely. iaea is a unique player to contribute to the promotion of millennium development and its follow-up. i never thought there would be such a huge nuclear accident during my tenure in japan. i had to use a lot of time and energy to address this issue. if you have interest, i would come back to this issue.
planaea adopted an action to enhance the safety of nuclear power globally. the action plan is now implementation. nuclear plants are safer now. or expressionlief of some people, many countries continue to improve nuclear power as an option. we are providing a regular dprrt on iran, syria, and a case.
nuclear in -- iranian issue is a very complicated one. every country needs to imply had -- comprehensive safeguard implement the copperheads of safeguard -- comprehensive safeguard. for example, the net i do dishes united nations security council. this is standard. all the countries, including iran, need to abide by. , i can say that the material and facilities placed under safeguard in iran are staying for peaceful purpose
. there are additional protocol and other obligations not limited. they give assurance. we had long negotiations with iran in recent years. 29th of this and month, we had a meeting with iran. after the coming of president rouhani, we had carefully we had a meeting. , on the 28thetings and 29th. we did have a very productive .eeting
if you have interest, i will come back to this issue. 2011, badger a conclusion that the facility -- i drew a conclusion of the facility that was destroyed was very likely a nuclear reactor. we are very confident that our conclusion is correct. no follow-up has been made so far. to understand that syria is in a very difficult situation. iran is the most important and only issue. asia, this tokyo, or issue is also a very serious
issue. in one sense, the situation is expelledause they have all the inspectors and detonated nuclear weapons. that,sitive thing in dialogue. it is dynamic. it is not functioning now, but countries are working formally and informally to reactivate this process. the iaea is ready to send back our inspectors, and we believe we have an essential role to play in the verification of de- the koreanion of peninsula. iaea has multiple objectives.
it is a technical organization. we are working in a very highly political environment. will stop and be happy to converse with michael. thank you very much. >> it is an honor and privilege for me to be hosting mr. amano, one of the first people i he was japan'sn ambassador just over a decade ago. we have remained friendly since then. he has stamped iaea with his own style, one of talking and calling it like it is. in that spirit, i hope we can have a good session with my
questions and with the audience's. meeting which you had with the iranian deputy foreign minister, and then there was a meeting of the two sides. the atmosphere of the talks, you said, was better. the question is, when will we see concrete progress, such as a visit to the site? iran had that meeting with on the 28th and 29th of october. this is the second meeting between iran and iaea after mr. rouhani became president. the first one took place at the end of september. it was a get to know each other meeting. meeting was a very political meeting. productive, and there was some positive development.
the important thing, there was a change. there was some change of tone, yes. there has been a change of tone since the coming of president rouhani. meeting, there was some real tension. proposal.a omecontains sub -- s substance, a step-by-step approach. agreed tohe iaea resolve all the present and past issues through cooperation and dialogue. iaea and iran are now working on
the new proposal. forward at the november meetings. by no means, it means the end of the process, and much more needs to be done. this is where we stand now. >> you say there was real progress made. you have several key demands. that a site which was once a container in the open now has a shed over it. over the asphalted ground. the question is, it will they finally let you go there. the other question which you differed from them, you wanted to be able to go back and ask questions at any time. iran once one file to be closed,
you move on, you cannot go back to the file. issuesre substantial which get to the heart of your being able to be affected. will you be able to be effective on those issues and on others? question is about the site. this is a part of the issue ofch we call it issues dimension. in the report i issued in 2011, we have identified 12 areas where we need verification from iran. site is one of these 12 areas. agreed that all the issues will be resolved, and the
will be partchin of the process. we are now working on other issues. regarding the question as to whether we can go back to the place again or not, we have not discussed that much in details at this time. agreement is that we will resolve all the issues through cooperation and dialogue. this is very important. i wish you luck going forward, and i hope you can make some progress. another question about iran, are you currently inspecting iran in
a full enough weight to be able to detect any breakout effort to make enough weapon grade uranium for a bomb? iran do this in a two-week period? quite confident that changes, anyny deviation in a reasonable amount of time. for if there is any facility [indiscernible] we do not have that assurance. >> since you have not been applying judicial protocol since 2006, would they be able to be hiding things from you elsewhere? it is essential and helpful
for us to have a better understanding. the implementation of additional protocols will give us more confidence on the peaceful iranian activities. >> the advanced centrifuges which they installed, they have not put nuclear material in them yet, as of the last report. how good are those centrifuges? do you think they will work? >> we do not know yet. they are not operating. of ourn purpose inspection is not to verify how effective they are. the main objective is to verify that the material and facilities stay in peaceful activities. which is ag pmd,
huge sticking point, is the agency's aim to uncover details of all unpledged activities -- alleged activities, or simply to verify that iran is no longer engaged? seeking clarification unto iran. theould like to clarify present and past activities. farfar we can go and how weekend attack, it depends. can get, it depends. it is essential that iran cooperates with us to clarify these issues. past,iran cleared up the would they get some sort of amnesty? there would not be measures against him for this, it would
be one step going towards a deal, or would there have to be some kind of sanction? >> in resolving the iran nuclear issues -- there are two roots. one is on the iaea wrote. -- route. these routes are different, independent, and separate. in the route between iran and iaea, the main focus is on that verification. we would like to see the timelyntation of more provision of information, which is called modified implementation of modified code 3.1. it means timely information about iranian nuclear activities .
parties that attend these talks are iran and iaea. 3 dialogueer hand, eu- is dealing with possible lifting of sanctions, possible limitation of enrichment activities. the parties involved are different. russia, china, and the united states. they are negotiating with iran. an important meeting will take place on the seventh and eighth of november next month. >> as you pointed out, the two tracks are separate from each other. hasn't iran said very clearly
that there can be no progress in vienna until there is progress +1, and doesn't this inject a politicizing of the iaea? >> i have not heard that says president ro -- since president rouhani started. sometimes there was indications, sometimes there was no indication. i can tell you that after the , weng of president rouhani a meeting, but we have not had this linkage. >> that would be a truly substantial change, if that is the case. >> i think so. there is some substance in the
new proposal by iran. we would like to carry it forward in the next meeting on the 11th of november. >> you arrived in washington and met with secretary kerry and susan rice at the white house. what are they telling you about how they see popes -- hopes for progress and iran, and the iaea and how they feel you are doing? i have met with secretary kerry, and susan rice. we have discussed the iranian certification, with support to the peaceful range of a wide
issues. i sense a strong support of the activities of the iaea. purpose is not to talk about the ongoing discussions. any ideaey give you about the upcoming talks in geneva? not much in -- i take into account a discussion that just took place in vienna. 5+1 is preparing for the next meeting. i don't have much to report unto you on this issue. >> two quick questions. the first is on syria. have the site been affected by the civil war? is there a place you can go to
do proper verification? syria, we have a so-called reactor that has saw -- some small amount of enriched uranium that is under iaea safeguards. safeguard.hat facility we have visited the facility regularly. ofdon't have any indication things getting worse. >> and at the other three sites? are -- one isites
the syrian nuclear facility safeguards. the military reactor is under safeguard. of thes another issue destroyed facility located in another place. drew a conclusion that it is very likely that it was a nuclear reactor. nuclear reactors do not exist independently. have an interest in verifying that functionally irradiated facilities are not under safeguard. we need to have access to them
and we not yet have had access to these facilities. we do not know how these facilities are for now. >> do you know if any of them have been affected by the fighting? >> we do not know. question, you explained the situation in north korea very well. -- what would be the verification approach given that continuity has be lost -- has been lost? would you return with additional protocol for whiter inspection? -- for whiter inspection? inspection? to implementa has all of the iaea safeguards. argument on the
procedure of withdrawal. korea is not acting as a member of the mpt. it is clear north korea has withdrawn from the iaea and are not a member. in order to undo any activities in north korea we need a political agreement among the major stakeholders and we need the consent of the policy-making body of the iaea. do with respect to north korea? we can take a small step. perhaps we send back our inspectors to nuclear
facilities. this is a small step but i think it has a lot of meaning. up ine had an inspector april 2009 we had better knowledge. we continue to monitor now but our knowledge is degrading. our next step is to send it back inspectors. >> i would like to open up questions from the audience. press, pleasehe hold your fire. we will have a press conference later. please wait for the microphone to be passed to you. as always, please ask a question. we do not have much time. we want to get in as many questions as possible, so no speeches.
>> thank you very much. the goals is to secure more intrusive inspections by the iaea. what would these inspections involve? what is it you need to do that you're not doing now? the -- as this is the issue discussed earlier i cannot give an definitive answer. isbasically means there additional protocol. it is more inclusive of our verification measures.
meansive inspections can more than the measures included protocol.additional sometimes it is not needed. >> thank you, director general. questionike to ask a with a broader timeframe. the discussion has been up to -- been on specific countries of concern. more broadly, looking ahead, there will be an expansion of nuclear energy for energy security reasons and because it is the primary source of low carbon energy going forward. how will that expansion of nuclear energy, notwithstanding
the setback there has been in japan with the fukushima yakked reactorm -- fukushima problem -- how can that expansion a conflict without creating proliferation risks and what does that, in turn, mean for the iaea's mission and resources? >> according to our latest estimates, there will be an nuclear in the use of power by 2030. .17%.t scenario will be 17 we forsee there will be a steady increase in the use of nuclear power.
what does it mean for us? it certainly increases the workload for inspections. therefore we are doing maximum efforts to rationalize and make the inspections more efficient with tehe same amount of money. we cannot expect an increase in funds. another important thing we're doing with other countries, especially with newcomers, is to to the meyerm stone document. embarking on nuclear power is a huge project. it takes a lot of years and requires meticulous preparation. want to embark in nuclear power need to strengthen
nuclear infrastructure. by that i mean the verification of measured conventions, establish regular bodies, enact people, rules, train and make a good selection of sites and technology. steps todentified 19 prepare for the embarking on nuclear power. we are assisting these countries. not encouraging or discouraging the use of nuclear power. but if countries use nuclear power, the must do it safely, securely, and without the risk of proliferation. countries canese use nuclear power without increasing the risk of proliferation.
here, please. >> good afternoon. i am benjamin, a retired diplomat. of you speak to the nature the iaea's contacts with israeli officials, and israel.a officials to a relationship with the ambassador in vietnam. and the senior staff in the general conference -- the general conference is the most important meeting of the iaea, and that takes place in september. for example, when i attend other --tings, like and outposts
contact with have senior officials of israel. we have regular and normal contact with israel. i believe that is helpful to having good communication with israel. >> back there. williamsyou. sarah with the partnership for global security. i was wondering if you could expand on the role of the iaea and the nuclear stomach process and how that has developed over the years and where you see that going, following what we expect to be the last summit in 2016. methe first big event for after i joined the iaea was not
to attend the nuclear security summit held in washington in 2009. i was tasked to make a presentation in front of president obama and i was thrilled and excited. i was frightened. but i could survive. after that i regularly attended the neck -- attended the nuclear security summit. and we made our input. has a central role in strengthening nuclear security. information and we -- the capacity to analyze had 400r we have information on the illicit trafficking of radioactive materials.
that information is very important. we have a capacity to help our themries by incapacitating or by a donation of equipment. the -- we can train people. efforts, weof these can strengthen the nuclear security in a concrete manner. we make our input on the nuclear security summit. the summit participants gave a gift of guidance and instruction to the government. one of the areas we are focusing the force onry of
the amendment and the conventions of the fiscal protection of nuclear material. this is a complicated name. it cppm the scope is limited. to oceannly applied transport. extends in scope if it enters into force. covered by this convention. we are promoting the entry into m amendment. cppn we believe we can strengthen nuclear security. iaea has held huge meetings on nuclear security in july this
year. people,ttended by 1200 that was one of the biggest totings and will continue hold conferences and will strengthen our nuclear security office to promote the division. >> --lo, my name is what is -- >> my understanding of the iranian proposals as they want to keep the facilities they currently have and even perhaps an old new nuclear infrastructure. build new nuclear and for structure. as part of that transparency, do you understand that the iranians
would agree to 24-hour monitoring with remote cameras? -- >> byhat you mean that you meet there would be live streaming? route, we arean not discussing that much detail. we have agreed to resolve all of these issues through corporation and dialogue. all issues mean current and past. iran made that proposal based on step-by-step -- and it contains some substance. we will see.
>> thank you, daryl kimball. a question about special inspections under the conference of safeguard agreements that iran has and other countries. the agency, as i understand it, does have the option to conduct a special inspection. my question to you is with reference to the questions about potential military dimensions. has the agency considered this? could be useful in resolving either the current or past questions about those activities? and then on technical cooperation, the agency protect -- tech -- agency provides a lot -- irectional what are they doing to make sure that technical cooperation does not provide assistance to nuclear weapons programs? for instance, pakistan has
gotten technical assistance for uranium mining, as well as heavywater reactor operations. it has used uranium mining and heavywater facilities to produce plutonium. what assurances could you provide that that's technical operations is not assisting in the manufacturing of nuclear weapons? >> we are giving this corporation to the facility that is under safeguard. we are not assisting military activities at all. for the countries that have not embarked on nuclear power, we are helping them adhere to the conventions to establish a regulatory system, safeguard system, and to help them in
every way to prevent information from nuclear weapons. for the special infection -- special inspections, is that available? conditions. being call for some special circumstances. -- we can call for some special circumstances. the case was a bit different. i am not familiar with other cases in which we have called for special inspections. >> we haven't been that successful with north korea. >> when we are called for special inspection, they declare
to withdraw from the mtp. >> in the middle, please. >> thank you, justin anderson. director general, i am wondering if you can comment on the general state of health from your perspective and the iaea's perspective both as a framework and as it has been implemented with specific countries. an additional protocol approach has been around for a few years. how do you and the agency feel it has worked in terms of strengthening your abilities to safeguard nuclear materials? if there was anything you would change in terms of the diplomacy part of its or the technical or scientific aspects of it, what would you seek to change in the future? >> the immediate objective for us in the near future is to
universalize the additional protocol. we have invested a lot of in expanding the application or implementation of i joined thel -- joined the iaea in 2009. now 121 countries are implementing additional protocol. essential protocol is to exclude the possibility of undeclared activities and we would like to see more countries adhere to the additional protocol. can we do more or not? i think that the priority for now for us is to universalize or
expand into a number of countries that implement additional protocol. unfortunately, truly unfortunately because the questions are excellent, every leader is, our dear going to speak. >> the dear leader references a little uncomfortable. i regret that the air traffic control system in our country prevented me from welcoming you here. before becoming president and ceo of the wilson center two- and-a-half years ago i served as a member of congress for nine terms and i met with you in vienna as part of a bipartisan congressional delegation in january 2010, just after you had assumed your responsibilities as the director general. we in congress to the time knew three things about you, and they
still apply. number one, we know how competent you are from your years as chair of the board of governors of the iaea. number two, your straight talk -- i think everyone here in this high-level audience has heard all that. and number three, we knew about your willingness to take strong action. all of which are essential as the iaea goes forward in an extremely dangerous world. ,ou described three countries there are probably others that are going to be on a longer list. you honor us by making the wilson center your only public stop after the conference since the election of resident maharani. president rouhani.
-- to conjure it so much to the subject of trying to understand iran's intentions in making the soundest policy choices. i wanted to remind everyone that when president wilson accepted the nobel peace prize in 1919, by letter, he wrote that the cause of peace will be a continuing labor. almost a hundred years later the cause of peace is continuing labor and the reason i hope we will make progress is because we have the iaea under very strong leadership, your leadership. thank you very much and think all of you very much for coming. -- and thank all of you very much for coming. [applause] >> this concludes our program. secretaryke to thank amano for coming.
theveryone would leave auditorium, we have a press conference here. thank you very much. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2013]
>> a reminder, this discussion with the head of the iaea, you can watch in our video library on coming up in an hour we will take you to the law -- to the white house for briefing set to get underway at 1:30 eastern. president obama and iranian prime minister are set to meet in the oval office and we will have the briefing for you at 1:30. also this morning, top national forrity experts gathered the annual american bar association national security conference. law-enforcement and government officials talked about a range of current threats from cyber terrorism to organized crime.
>> the problem has been or can -- has been created that organized crime, particularly in latin american countries has been able to make aliens of dollars trafficking marijuana and other contraband materials. i do not know how successful we would the and i would agree about the success that might or might not happen from legalizing marijuana. . when alcohol was illegal in the they hadates, gambling, prostitution, normal knuckle dragging racketeering. there were not large scale threats when they became -- when prohibition goes into effect there is a bonanza. it creates the alto pone and the lucky luciana was and the rest of the united states getting involved in the importation or production of illegal alcohol
and the speakeasies. eliminated,tion is too late to eliminate coast industrial, they have become a powerful national organization. i have dominated the four largest labor unions in the united states and industries affected by those unions. they have now corrupted public officials such as police and way toors all the washington. the elimination of prohibition did not eliminate the mafia growth that had been allowed and created and able to flourish that was then entrenched. it was too late to take them out then. has taken 75 years of court unaided efforts and sustained attack to reduce them now. we have been successful in reducing them.
if you watch godfather one, it is a very accurate depiction of the power and control in the 40's 50's and 60's. it went from godfather to the sopranos, sopranos arguing over vacant lots in new jersey. the elimination of prohibition did not weaken them. a continuing attack. them the entire event is available on our website in the video library. c-span also recently covered a panel discussion looking at the balance between national security and individual privacy. participants included special agent in charge of intelligence, a former u.s. ambassador to
pakistan, and an aclu attorney. this is hosted by the rand corporation and held in santa monica california. it is just over an hour. demo let me introduce the speakers. you have to figure out who they are once they start talk. it is a great topic and a great panel. root willis is one of the young stars of the organizational moderate. he is both senior analyst and professor at the private school. that is him on the far end. analysisexpert on risk and techniques across a wide and applyinges risk analysis to homeland security issues. drew -- rafael garcia. he is in charge of the intelligence division in los angeles.
we are glad george can present the fbi tonight. he has worked in various capacities with the fbi since 1990 five, focusing on intelligence, counterterrorism, and weapons of mass destruction. his work has taken him to fort hoover in washington at fbi headquarters, but also has been the fbi's deputy on scene commander in iraq. he was an army veteran before that. next to him is ambassador me,ron mitchell -- excuse cameron munter. was ambassador to pakistan from 2010 22012. he will have many hair-raising stories about that relationship
in a time when u.s. pakistani ,elations were not easy including the capture and killing of osama bin laden. before that he had an easy assignment in baghdad for he had responsibility for overseeing the drawdown of u.s. troops. before that he was ambassador to serbia, to be the chief and admission in the czech republic and poland. he is also served in the national security council under clinton, bush, and other departments. who but not least is peter is a senior staff attorney at the california office. he has these this -- he has the distinction of having important cases against the lapd.
he has been a law clerk at the u.s. circuit court and has had a distinguished career outside and inside the aclu. please join me and welcoming our distinguished panel. [applause] henry, over to you. >> thank you, greg. we are here to talk about security and privacy. events of the last two years have put these in the forefront. the boston bombing reminded us that terrorism is still an ex an existential threats. a month later, edward snowden began releasing revelations and about massive surveillance that our government was doing. this kicked off a healthy public
debate about how we balance privacy and security. as you heard from greg, it is our mission at rand to improve the quality of public policy decision-making. that is why we brought together this panel. people who have different views. everyone here has deep expertise. we are hoping to have an open discussion. there will be some things and questions they will be unable to answer because of the situations. we will try to guide the discussion over a few topics. we will start with trying to understand what works with intelligence security and why we feel we need to put measures in place. we are then going to turn to what are the increased risks of mass collection of data on the public? finally, what are the implications of this on how we implement foreign policy.
it serves as an overarching of the things i would like to see us cover. i would like to start with the first question on the rent we face and why we need security. if there are no benefits, we do not need security. how has the threat of terrorism changed over the past decade and how have our methods adaptive? >> it has changed in relatively significant ways. it is a far more diffuse threat than it was 10 or 15 years ago. it is not necessarily align to buy group, but principally by ideology and other driving fact there's, -- driving factors. secondly, the threat seems to
progress at times very rapidly. what may appear to be a localized threat today could be on our doorstep tomorrow. lastly, they do not necessarily appear based on their actions in recent actions are indicators of that. big and complex attacks are their goal or their aim to accomplish their objectives. relatively small in comparison attacks that are relatively simple to put together and execute seem to be a preference. they have the same tools we all have to communicate in a worldwide capacity, through the internet and other social media, which makes communicating plans and intentions relatively easy, and also to gain support and materials.
these are some of the challenges we are responding to. >> as someone who spent the last 10 years out of the united states, this is not something americans will seek to deal with on their own. this is going to take some sort of cooperation with foreigners, those who are friendly to us in understanding those foreign -- and understanding those foreign elements who are not really to us. it is not just an american task. you make a big mistake if we see it as only hours. >> from a security this, what types of steps is important for us to be able to take?
>> from my organization's if, we have to show due diligence that we do not dismiss even what may be the smallest allegation. but to do that within the construct provided to us through congress and stemming from our constitution. make sure that we leave no stone unturned and that we do that with the responsibility to protect the citizens. that aspect of our work is present every day. even with predicated investigations and facts that can be substantiated, we must balance that with the responsibility to maintain civil liberties and privacy. we cannot do everything that may be available to us until we can demonstrate lesser intrusive
methods have been effective. every day, men and women with the fbi work toward accomplishing that mission recognizing they have that responsibility of policy civil liberties and privacy along the way. >> let me jump in here. from an outsider's perspective looking at law enforcement practices, not only federal law enforcement, but also local enforcement like lapd or in way pd -- nypd, it seems that law enforcement has shifted from a traditional law enforcement model -- finding bad guys, investigating them, seeing if you can find their friends and investgate them, to more of an
intelligence model, collecting information and collecting dots, which might appear innocuous. and put together, it might reveal some sort of crime. whether that is the nsa program gathering metadata or suspicious activity or porting programs and local programs -- suspicious activity or reporting programs. there has been a shift to collecting lots of data. there is a question as to whether that is an effective model. look at william webster's community report on the fort hood shooting. one of the conclusions is that intelligence analysts missed intelligence because of a relentless work load created by
an explosion of data they have to process. there is a question about whether this is adding more hay to the haystack and an ineffective way to police. >> thank you for bringing up those points. you also highlighted that law enforcement has a couple of rolls. they have the role of investigating crimes. in today -- law enforcement has a couple of roles. george, you mentioned there is an effort to try to do this within the realm of protecting civil liberties. there is a history of cases where some of those civil liberties have been abused so checks have been put in place. i would like to ask your view on where those checks are effective and where you might have some concerns.
>> there are a lot of checks that have been put in place. some are less effective than others. within the nsa programs we are seeing, a lot of checks have proven ineffective. traditionally, the fourth amendment sets up a warrant requirement. no warrant shall issue but on probable cause. the shift to a more universal collection mechanism requires the bypassing of that. whether that is true, the oak warrants issued -- bulk warrants issued through fisa courts or the data gathered outside any kind of warrant. but that model seems to be and in effect of way of overseeing
ineffective way of overseeing. what is in effect it is the secrecy. one of the things that is stunning about the revelations and the scope of the programs is how far they have gone without any public discussion. also, in the context of the fisa courts, we have seen fisa judges saying, we are not the most effective check on this. we cannot evaluate the information resented to us in one-sided situations in a one- sided preceding where there is no adversary. he cannot supervise what is being done with our orders, what is being acted on, because we are just a court. the secrecy and adversarial
nature of the fisa court is a huge problem that needs to be addressed. >> that brings to the next -- brings us to the next part of this discussion. we have heard about the things we need to do to respond. i get asked a question, are we safer because of what we do? in many ways, that is the wrong question. the question we posed that is, what have we gained in terms of safety and what have we lost? i will turn back to peter to start with. what are some of the risks of mass surveillance? >> it is always difficult to
articulate the value of privacy thomas but i will give it a shot. -- value of privacy, but i will give it a shot. there are a few answers to that. most people are doing something wrong. [laughter] it may be not what they think. running red lights, sloppy preparation of your tax returns. people do things wrong. government does not always target bad guys or who they think are bad guys for exactly the reasons you might think. al capone was gotten on tax evasion. a lot of times we see what seems to be contextual charges brought.
an investigation that has a national security agent on it results in an immigration charge or a deportation proceeding. somebody gets into their head the idea that you are doing something wrong, that can create a problem. government is made up of people who are fallible. individuals can abuse the power that has been given to them. that includes rogue actors. edward snowden did not do what the government expected. in los angeles there was the public disorder and intelligence division that compiled information and used it for political purposes. information that is collected
for law enforcement and security purposes is often used on political groups. >> if i could provide some perspective. the fbi operates through mandates that are codified in statute laws written by our congress and signed by the president into law. that process has produced, appropriately and necessarily, oversight, not just in the executive branch of government itself. the department of justice is obviously in the fbi as well. but also with the congress and through the court system and the judicial branch. that is to make sure that they and and day out, the work we are doing -- day in and day out, the work we are doing is
representing the people of the united states and is what is required at that point in time. they have an expectation that we use those tools. they have an equal expectation that we balance the use of those tools in a predicated investigation for which we are allowed to use those tools to protect civil liberties and privacy. just because we have the authority by law to use certain techniques, we have a responsibility and a requirement to do so in a manner that is least intrusive whenever possible. sometimes, even an interview is to intrusive. if we think you have been involved in wrongdoing because
we have received information and we can't corroborate aspects of it and we are authorized to open and we can corroborate aspects of it and we are authorized to open investigation, we can have a discussion with you at your work lace. the interview itself -- at your work place. the interview itself is less intrusive, but doing it at your work place is an intrusion on your privacy. this causes people to have concerns they should not have. we take care to measure the technique used and the manner it might be used before we do it. oversight is provided by the leadership as well as those individuals responsible for conducting the investigation. that happens as a matter of practice every day.
>> some of the discussion highlights a couple of things that leads to the conflicts that we are talking about. maybe because of this there might be intimidation. there might the first amendment concerns or the possibility of an unwarranted search. peter, can you expand on the way people have framed whether or not these constitutional concerns are at risk? >> that is certainly a concern. we have seen that. it goes back to the point i was making earlier about surveillance being targeted against political groups, whether it was surveillance of martin luther king during the 1960s by the fbi, or whether the fbi placed its own undercover
agents inside the occupied sandy relief efforts. that has a real potential to chill people's political activity, people who may want to go out and participate in occupied sandy relief efforts or the original occupied efforts. it may be chilled if people think their participation may be noted and that may have repercussions down the road. this is a good audience to convey that point. there are young people who might want jobs that rants or with the state department who might have second thoughts -- you might want jobs at rand or with the state department who might have second thoughts. to go back to the oversight, there is a legal issue with oversight by the courts, particularly surveillance. there is a doctrine that says you cannot challenge a program
unless you can prove you have been harmed by it and your objective reaction to the existence of the program is not enough. you have to prove you have been targeted. nobody can prove they have been targeted by secret surveillance programs. the aclu has brought the challenge of warrantless surveillance programs and they have been thrown out. the court says, we understand you may be a journalist and you may be chilled because you have a reasonable believe you may be monitored. you cannot prove you are being monitored. we are not going to take the case. that takes the court out of the oversight picture and that is a real problem. >> one aspect of some of that is the concerns you discussed about people being affected by
awareness of surveillance not choosing to do something. isn't that already happening? news stories about employers looking at facebook sites. i wrote an e-mail on gmail the other day. based on what i wrote, it asked me if i wanted to put something on my calendar. with changes in technology, what is the fuss about? this is an open question, if anybody would like to respond. >> these types of dialogs are very important. these discussions are the rings that -- things our elected officials consider when they decide to make changes in our laws. things that change the landscape of the laws that were enacted
when those things did not exist. that is very important. to get back to the point on political groups, for example. a scenario where we have a situation where we have a predicated investigation, a violation of federal law has occurred or will occur. it is determined that the people involved are either a political candidate, a politician, or involved in a political organization. that steps up the oversight. we recognize the effect that might have in chilling people's involvement in political activity. it gets even more oversight and scrutiny that it would if that identical situation existed and there was not a political entity or an individual involved in politics and that the tick interact. -- involved in politics in that particular act. we respond differently than we
would in other circumstances that do not have that dimension involved. >> i recognize that framework is there in the fbi. it is an internal guidance structure. i am not sure how widely it is applied with political leaders. political activity is capable of broad definitions. martin luther king is going to go through particular procedures. with respect to the technology question, there are a couple of things. we are generating a lot more data in this digital age than we were before, whether it is e- mails or your cell phones
sending out information about your location. there are some ramifications, some of which are small fixes and some of which are big fixes. there is the third-party doctrine and law that says if you are sharing of nation with a third party like a bank or your cell phone provider, you do not have an expectation of privacy with respect to the fourth amendment. that is a doctrine developed and thus -- in the 1960s. maybe then we felt we would not have an expectation of privacy and data. but today, all of our communications and location every moment is being tracked. there is a question about whether we need to shift our view of what is private with respect to corporations. we cannot have a different
standard for corporation than the -- corporations than the federal government. we could not ask the police to get a warrant for information they could buy. we need to think about the relationship we have to our data and whether there is some privacy we feel in our data even when it resides with a corporation and changing that framework as well. >> i have wondered why i am here. i have finally figured out it is to make sure these guys to not get too close to each other. [applause] not that i am going to give you
trenchant on domestic affairs. i am not trying to say because textual boundaries my colleagues the contextual boundaries my colleagues are speaking on our limited. the threat from nine/11 did not come from inside the united states -- 9-11 did not come from inside the united states. there is a very real threat outside the united states, one that is not always playing by the same rules that we do. while i am not critical of the need to have a debate on that level, i asked that we open up a dimension of taking into account the rules foreigners play by. the germans have a real problem with secrecy. that makes them very concerned
when they find out what is a sincere effort to sift through this data -- similarly, the french. the french did lots of naughty things. brazil has even talked about this. if you are going to have a means of coming to an agreement on this, we must not limit it to our domestic issues whether they are legal, moral, or practical. it is not just about us. it is about other people thinking in other ways. many of the ways cost the attack. -- caused the attack. by the rules we play by, it is important that we make our situation clear, but not ignore the fact that there are
different cultures and different historical backgrounds. we are not used to talking about things. we are talking about the denial of due process to american citizens. citizens. we are also talking about the denial of due process to people who are not americans. what does the constitution say about that? not much. that does not mean our constitution is wrong. it would be a mistake not to think about the impact these things have around the world. i wanted to throw that in. [applause] >> i would like to follow that up. you did broaden the discussion a bit. there is a threat we face. revelations about surveillance that started a discussion.
did they change anything about our ability to conduct foreign policy or to understand the threats we face? >> one of the lessons of the lessons of the last 10 or 15 years is we are not doing this in a vacuum. the intelligence work around the world and the law enforcement cooperation -- for all you read in the newspapers about the difficulties with other countries, it is extraordinary the cooperation we have from other countries. i would like to see a better understanding of that in the public sphere. that like-minded people can agree on certain precepts. it is understood that there are certain rules we need to follow together. that cooperation is an untold story that is quite positive.
on the other hand, if we simply rely on the uncritical use of data not taking into account the fact that the world is a complex place, we are going to make the mistakes you make when you do not understand a foreign culture and cannot apply the intelligence to the way people act. as we work to support our law enforcement officials in what they are doing, we also need to think about the way intelligence is organized and the way intelligence works. in certain parts of the world like pakistan, where our efforts to work against terrorism are poorly understood, we do ourselves a disservice if we rely too much on secrecy. giving you a general account, we
have a program known as the drone program in that part of the world. it is a secret program, but it is something you read about on the front page of the "new york times." there are those of us who work in the government who think that is a program that can be a humane program. drones are accurate weapons. if used judiciously, they can lead to a less savage way of fighting a very real war. if the public understand this correctly, if governments share this information in the right way, our chances of loathing a building a national and international consensus based on the understanding of what this weapon can be used for is much later. the secrecy has held us back -- is much greater.
>> we could go on discussing this among ourselves. the goal is to have a discussion. i would like to open it up to discussion from the floor. if you raise your hand, they will bring you a microphone. >> we will do our best to identify as many people as we can. we have about 25 minutes for q&a, and we will start in the front. >> thank you for a fascinating conversation. mr. ambassador, i have two questions for you. focusing on foreign leaders and their communications, how has it impacted our ability to work with them in trying to get them to get more security taking care of? is that the fault of edward snowden for releasing that information? the other question i have -- >> let me start with that so i don't forget it.
one thing my colleagues are talking about is where are the limits of trust and the limits of judgment? these are extraordinarily hard things to measure. you have powers that you can use. should you use them? that question, is what has happened hurt us? yes. when you are dealing with foreign governments and they are surprised by what you do, that is basically diplomacy 101. you try to build trust. if you do not build trust, it is harder to do things. does it mean you should not have surveillance? that is something for our friends to discuss.
believe me, they are not people who don't use surveillance, either. the question is how do you do that? how do like-minded people develop the judgment and trust to work together? a guy like edward snowden -- remember, there is an old saying. i hope none of you are journalists. the difference between a diplomat and a journalist is that a diplomat knows many things he does not say. a journalist says many things he does not know. [laughter] aside from trying to be cute, what we are trying to say is, is it wrong not to say everything? if i am in a sensitive conversation overseas as a diplomat, and i am told something in confidence and that message was the person's life in danger -- and that has happened to me. when a guy like bradley manning or edward snowden decides he has to put that in public, they have broken down trust.
i will not come down one way or another. as a diplomat, i do not do that. i would urge you -- making someone a hero or a villain is a difficult question. for them to blast out totally in public without any secrecy, that can be a violation of the privacy people had in talking to them. the only way you can deal with it is with a scale of judgment. sorry to cut you off. >> i would like a definition of privacy today from each of you.
given the data that floats around and given the notion that metadata, what is privacy as you see it today? do we have a right to it? >> peter? >> sure. i have a quick and totally useless definition. privacy is information you reasonably expect not to be shared with some section of the population. it can be situational. you can have privacy vis-à-vis some individuals. you may go to the gym and change in front of people in the locker
room, but you do not expect a video of you changing to be posted on the internet. there is a lot of -- the trouble is in the definition of what is reasonable to expect not to be shared. that is a conversation we have to have as a society. it is all about societal expectation. in their troubling and descriptive aspects, there is what we do not share with others. and there are normative aspects. what the technology age has done is have millions of people go online and inadvertently shared data that they do not -- that they think they are not sharing with other people. but everybody is doing it. is privacy what we are actually doing or what everybody thinks we should be doing?
>> i will just add another aspect of our research here at rand. it was motivated by a seminal court case. a warrant was given for a drug bust based on monitoring of a house with an infrared camera that showed there was more energy coming out of that house than you would expect. there were grow lights. should there be an expectation of privacy of not being able to see heat coming off of a house with a camera? it highlights that as technology advances, our expectation of that may change. should we move to someone else? >> privacy is defined from a law enforcement perspective by case law.
decisions made by the courts, particularly the supreme court. we make adjustments. in a more practical sense, when we swear an oath to protect and defend the constitution, we do so with an acknowledgment that it contains civil liberties and a privacy responsibility. we have to apply the responsibility to maintain privacy strictly within keeping with applicable laws, but also an understanding that the main responsibility from a law enforcement perspective -- and the domestic intelligence responsibilities -- is that we do so in consideration of the individual that is being looked at. in the end, what we are looking at every day is simply the truth constrained by applicable laws that we are allowed to operate
in and recognition that we have responsibility to protect civil liberties and privacy. that constraint drives the decision making of our agents. the truth could be exoneration. this individual we are looking at deserves not to be affected by this investigation. if we determine that the truth indicates that this individual has done nothing wrong, that is important. we see that as essential to our responsibility. that is why we conduct our investigations as we do taking sure that if the truth took us to a different place, other people were not damaged by it. >> yes, there seems to be a horrible cost associated with some of the revelations that have come out recently. the united states' reputation
has taken a huge beating. whether it be in brazil or the european union talking about not sending data to the united states. there is a downside to the revelations about everything we have been doing. did anyone ever consider that if this stuff became public knowledge that we would be in deep, deep, deep trouble with our allies? we are also enabling our enemies. chinese telecommunications vendors are now saying you should consider using our equipment because it is not bugged by the nsa. [laughter]
this is happening now -- it is not being reported, but it is a field i am interested in. what about the costs to our reputation and the consideration that maybe if we can do some some things, we should not do some things? >> let me take a whack at this one. i think there is a tendency to think that because this has happened and it has been damage i agree with you -- it was something people thought about and did not think it was important. there is a problem that when you are doing difficult analysis to find very bad people and you have masses of data, a lot of people put their head down and just work at it. that leads to the other question. who is making the policy decisions for those people?
to assume we did not think about it -- there is something intrinsic about this operation that makes people put their nose to the grindstone and do it. we may be learning this the hard way. we recognize that this has to be discussed at a policy level with our friends around the world so that it is a question of, yes, this is hard work that does not lend itself to reflection because it is so massive. yet it has to be one of the elements we get used to putting on the agenda for the asia- pacific summit's, for the -- summits, for the larger meetings we have. i do not see that as a way to dupe the brazilians. it is a result of the massive
problem that we have not caught up with. we have to talk with the brazilians and the french and everyone else about this. they are not going to not want to talk about this. >> may i just preface my remarks to you, cameron, when i visited pomona, i called it the amherst of the west. i read devastating reports that the drones are not doing what
you suggested, incredibly accurate. the wall street journal is pointing out regularly the disastrous side effects of civilian killings. how do you reconcile these two points of view? >> since i do not want to go to jail, i will not tell you everything you want to hear. [laughter] claims have been made about the use of drones in pakistan or yemen where they say there are numbers bandied about of civilians killed. my experience is that those numbers are grossly exaggerated. the reason i call for greater openness is that we have a greater story to tell than we are allowed to tell because of the secretness of this program. i am not allowed to talk to you about numbers.
but the fact is, i believe, if we could figure out a way to be more forthcoming with the public in the united states and with the public in pakistan and with pesky british ngo's, we could make the case rather than having speculation that is ideologically motivated. wildly pro-american reports saying there are zero people dying. it would be wise of us to have less secrecy so we could make those points. [applause] >> there was a reference made to the difference between intelligence gathering and law enforcement.
i understand the constitution protects us from a fishing expedition. how can we draw a distinction between law enforcement activity and the fishing activity and then national security interests in gathering information to prevent threats to national security? >> i can start with the civil libertarian viewpoint and open it up. from my perspective, it is about particularized suspicion. if law-enforcement targets for investigation individuals because they have a reason to believe they are doing something wrong, that is a law-enforcement model, and it is a model that has worked well to address crime, even serious crime that causes lots of brutality throughout this country. that is the model we used to
address gangs or organized crime. what we have seen is that there has been a shift to that. and it is not to the broad collection, whether it is looking at the nsa or domestic programs, in southern california, local jurisdictions are setting up license plate readers everywhere. they want to gather large amounts of information on everybody whether they have committed a crime or not. the fbi changed its internal regulations to allow a category of assessments that do not acquire a factual etiquette.
there has been a move to more bulk collection of data. >> that is true. post 9-11 there is an acknowledgment that we cannot simply work on discrete matters that are the focus of predicated investigations alone. there is an expectation that in all matters of threat issues, we look forward. that is an expectation that the fbi and others prevent things from happening before they happen. the important question is, how is that done? we go back to ensuring we are protecting civil liberties and the privacy of the american people while moving forward to protect the where people from criminal threats.
the attorney general authorized the use of the assessment process. the assessment process is intentionally and deliberately limited. it must have an authorized purpose. an authorized purpose may not be, shall not be an assessment opened based on what is already protected by the first amendment. to ensure we are not pursuing because of religion, because of national origin, because people are out assembling peacefully and freely as they are allowed to by the first amendment and so forth. it makes it clear that you cannot conduct an assessment if that is your sole reason for doing it. there are many other appropriate reasons for doing assessments. we can talk about migrations of gangs. when we are looking at the evolution of the gang problem,
and we recognize it is a problem we face today. what is it going to look like tomorrow and what can appropriately be done by law enforcement to address that problem tomorrow today so that we are not dealing with another big regional, national, or transnational gang tomorrow? that may mean that in that authorized purpose with clear objectives and trying to define what that gang, they might look at population data where it might be logical based on historical examples where it might crop up tomorrow and then engage on explaining what the problem might be, then involving many parts of the community, not just the law enforcement dimension.
not only recognizing that potential but being proactive in our actions to take care of it. a lot of it has to do with engaging community leaders. what can we do together to prevent it? it is good for law enforcement and good for communities. we do not wait for the lead to come in. that we are mandated by our leaders to look forward at problems to do the best that we can to prevent courses and to do that every day. >> the question i have is the notion of sovereignty and threats and security have even all over the last 20 or 30 years. how does this impact the
doctrine of the right to protect if we have already set a precedent with the u.n. right-to-protect interventions beginning in the 1990's? the nsa and the cyber threat commands with the u.s. army are indistinguishable. what is the potential impact with the right to protect with domestic issues and foreign issues? a classic example would be with the mexican cartels and all instances across the mexican border and with syria. >> want to start domestic and go foreign or start foreign and go domestic? one of the problems we had in
one of the problems on sovereignty is the actual definition of sovereignty. one of the problems we had in pakistan was that in questions when we were accused of violating the sovereignty of pakistan to kill osama bin laden, one of the counter arguments made from our side was that pakistan does not control the entire sovereignty of its country. the pakistani army does not extend its writ to the border of afghanistan. that is one of the reasons america has to take other measures. what i am getting at is be careful about the solidity of sovereignty. it is a spongy concept in a lot of the countries we are dealing with. second, the idea of how this has changed over the last 18 years. this question was most clearly brought out with the preemptive
doctrine of defense. it has been debated ever since. i do not think we have sorted it out. we have not come up with a clear answer to that question. what happens now is case-by- case, we evaluate whether these things violate some sort of sovereign principle. there is a moral discussion and there is a practical discussion, keeping america safe. these things mixed together in a way that is not quite as clear as the constitutional and personal debate in the united states. >> i would need some help in you framing the question to understand how you would want me to address it on the domestic front.
>> any of the cartels that operate along the lines of communication in texas. a 45 minute running gun battle in downtown nuevo laredo included hand grenades and automatic weapons. that type of information. we are connecting the dots. data and information are intelligence. we are putting intelligence and security in the lead in terms of what is now the right to protect. the debate here is security over in my mind, we have bridged that already. >> we work collaboratively and
cooperatively with the united states, with state and locals every day. it is difficult by design, and that is good. our constitution necessitates that and we embrace it. without state and local partners engaging, we would not be in a position to address it even remotely adequately. that extends to our international partners, which is why we have in position throughout the world fbi agents and analysts who are out there as fbi employees working with our partners in law enforcement to make sure we do everything we can to not arrive at the situation you described. when that is happening on the streets of an american city,
even along the border, that is a local police matter where they have a responsibility to protect the public from harm and to address that immediate threat. we work closely with them to prevent that from happening in the first place through the fbi's work and the state department. >> we have reached the hour that we have put aside for this. it has been a tremendous conversation. i would like to turn it back over to greg. >> i think i will stand around for a bit. if you have questions. [applause] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2013] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] >> i am bound to say the big issues we have talked about today are wonderful rand-like issues. data and analysis help. it is mostly about diversity.
two as i see it -- technology and privacy. google knows a lot more about you and me than the federal government does. do we care about that if their only point is to make sure they know before we do what i want to buy? the other question is more complicated. technology plus threat. in the old days, we could have search warrants. we knew what their phone numbers were. that was the threat. now the threat is much more diffuse. we do not know who we are looking for. we need to do some trolling. how do we do that without violating people's privacy and other rights. that is a big issue. it also has an international dimension. we are doing that trolling abroad as well as at home.
we need to work out arrangements with our own public and with our allies and friends and with people who are not always our friends. thank you all. podcast on >> you all did a great job answering questions. >> we will have the live briefing with jay carney once it is underway. president obama will be meeting with iraq he prime minister alba lucky. they are expected to talk to security concerns in the country as terror and violence has flared, particularly since the u.s. forces pulled out nearly two years ago. their discussion is coming on a day with the associated press is reporting an intelligence official saying the leader of the pakistan taliban was one of three people killed, and -- in a
suspected u.s. drone strike. we will have live coverage of the press briefing once again's underway here on c-span. we have a preview this morning " of theington journal meeting between president obama and the prime minister. host: and what you're excited to see out of it. iraqi the goal out of the perspective is to get u.s. help for the fight against a really terrorist-ike of driven violence inside iraq and the argument that the president thisime minister, rather, is a threat that affects not only iraq but it drives and iran.
it has really become in the counterterrorism parliament a transnational threat. this is an organization that grew out of the al qaeda and -- branch of al qaeda, now calls itself al qaeda in iraq and syria, so by its own mark or it is calling itself something larger than iraq. the goal from the u.s. side is help maliki. the u.s. agrees this is a much larger threat than it was even six months ago, and worthy of more u.s. support. the challenge there is convincing congress to go along with it because of the very long that congressints and the administration behind it have with the way maliki has governed.
host: how great is al qaeda's influence in iraq? guest: hasgreat at all, but it research in rather spectacular fashion about over the last x months. -- six months. as recently as the year ago, al qaeda in iraq was not dead, but not a daily presence. you would see a bombing here and there. it was not something that nour about, and worried it was not something that the u.s. took as a major threat either to his governance or to u.s. interest. that has really changed. one of the ways that has changed very effective outside influence that that organization has been able to garner from foreign fighters. work of some foreign advisers who were able to help al qaeda in iraq stage this
amazing jailbreak last summer in which the high leadership of al qaeda and iraq was rolled up, it had been rolled up over the pure ev us -- the previous three or four years. they are outed and and running the show again. ast: we're going to take listen to some of what the prime minister said yesterday in washington. i would love to get your thoughts. [video clip] >> we are talking with the americans, and we are telling them that we need to benefit from their experience, from the intelligence information, from training for those who are targeting al qaeda in the developed scientific ways. the iraqi people are willing to give blood following the terrorists, but iraq needs its friends to benefit from experience and training. also weapons that are necessary specifically for counterterrorism. counterterrorism have specific
needs weapons wise. oris not about proper things -- tanks or artillery, it has a specific web rendering -- specific weaponry. we need also intelligence information that will help us to target the strongholds in the south and the groups of terrorist. host: your thoughts on those words. guest: that is a polite and somewhat elliptical way of saying give me the apache helicopters that i really want and that the administration has can me privately that i half. and apache helicopters are the first order of business for maliki during this visit. it is an old technology but he absolutelyn effective one against small- group terrorism.
it is one of the army's most effective counterterror weapons. choice in bird of afghanistan, who often used to escort u.s. patrols because the arergents know that they way outgunned by it. it has precision hellfire missiles as do drones. it basically operates in many ways like a drunkard it can target one car, one militant, one guy with an rpg. it has very powerful cameras. all of those capabilities make it something that many in congress have said -- why in the world would we get this to the iraqis? who has showniki in the past that he will go after militias? shiite poweris own base.
aso, why would we reward him few months ahead of what is expected to be his run in april for a third presidential term when he has not fulfilled the promises that he made two years ago, not long after he had won his last one. that is really what this week is about is -- can maliki with u.s. , white house supports overcome those in congress and get first the apaches and then beyond that some wider intelligence and other counterterror capabilities shared by the u.s. more question -- earlier this week, the senators wrote to president barack obama in a letter urging him to ask the prime minister to form a political strategy that can up
stabilize the country, enable iraq to realize its vast potential, and help face better nations during security interests in iraq. take us through what their concerns are and what congress wants to see on iraq from the white house. guest: that was a remarkable letter. it was signed by the -- probably most influential republican and a couple of democratic leaders on foreign policy in the senate. real warning shot. it was a letter to obama, but it was really a broadside against maliki, and is said he is doing any number of things wrong. he is not the filled previous promises. he is governing -- these were not the letter's words, but essentially he is governing as a sectarian warlord, and the u.s. is not holding him to account for it.
and he is allowing too much influence by -- iran,- by -- next to which its shiite ses. they call that a malign influence, which is one of the stronger terms applied recently. are, asconcerns really i laid down the context of the apaches, look, since 2011, maliki has promised any number inclusive, have an power-sharing government. one was nominally set up. by the account of john mccain and others who wrote that --ter, malik he has said malik he has set about dismantling that. although he is accompanied here thehis trip by a defenseman
-- a defense and a foreign minister representing the two other major ethnic and sectarian blocs in iraq, and those whom he has allegedly subverted in the past, you know, the charge is that is just for show, and that he really intends to continue to govern from a shiite-first far hetive, and that so has been able to essentially use u.s. resources and u.s. cover to help do that. thank you for so much for joining us today. guest: you are very welcome. >> as we continue to wait to bring you live coverage of the white house briefing, you are probably hearing news about the shooting at lax, los angeles
international airport. the associated press is reporting that president obama has been briefed on the were ported shooting there. the white house of the los angeles police department is leading the response and investigation into the shooting, and administration officials are in touch with federal and local partners. the "l.a. times" says in a tweet that the gunman is in custody. the incident began at 9:30 a.m. pacific. witnesses described the gunman and terminal three. use a white -- he used a rifle. there are multiple victims. that tweet from cbs. we will have a briefing in just a moment when they get underway here at the white house briefing room. in the meantime, prime minister maliki meeting with president obama this afternoon. the prime minister spoke yesterday at the u.s. institute of peace. we will show you as much as we can from his comments until the briefing gets underway. >> the name of god, the most compassionate and merciful.
in the beginning, i want to express my gratitude and the esteem to former congressman mr. jim marshall for his welcoming speech. i also want to express my thank the gratitude to the ambassador for warm words. andalso, i want to thank send my greetings and gratitude for the role -- is playing in iraq. and the bounces we are facing at this one because of the development, the mechanisms and the new techniques used by terrorists to undermine interests.
an oil countries worldwide. once again, we are here in your strategic, important institute, and i wanted thank you for allowing me the opportunity to be here, and i want to say the bilateral organization in the u.s. with iraq. these relations are enhanced because we copulated with our partners and we shed blood together. overallowed us to win terrorists in iraq. we give blood together, american soldiers, iraqi soldiers, and , alsoher people of iraq was victim of the heinous terrorist attack led by our guide the former regime in iraq. we were able to start a new round of construction after defeating al qaeda, who at some
point stop development and resources our rich and to stop the assistant to iraq. none the less, some point, life can back to iraq. our old exports, our revenues, our budget. increased. the economy has started recovering. the situation has improved greatly in iraq at the security and economic level and also at ae political level despite diss balance immediately following the fall of the saddam hussein regime. union backt life and to iraq. but why do we see what we are seeing today? why are there massacres that amnesty international has
considered as a genocide of the iraqis? let me also mention that some one component is fighting and other components, but this is not true. people, theraqi sunnis, these shiites, the arabs, the kurds, are all alike. thes usually relating to terrorists who want to reach their goal by shedding the blood of the iraqis and spreading terror and undermining the political structure. iraq? al qaeda back in after we will labor -- after we were able, cooperation between our forces and the u.s.
-- why is terror back to iraq? i do believe you understand why. let me state it again. why is terrorism back to iraq into the region? what are the main reasons why terrorism is improving in iraq? a vision of the reality that is being impacted by the whole region after the so-called arab spring revolutions that we support because we thought it was a dictatorship that were oppressing the people for 30 or 40 years. >> good afternoon and happy friday. thank you for being here. before i take your questions, i have a brief announcement. on friday, november 8, the president will travel to the new event on thefor an
economy. the president will discuss the importance of taking measures to grow the economy and create jobs by increasing our exports. more details on the president's travel will be released as they become available. that is my very brief topper. i go to you. >> [inaudible] >> no, i have a full week ahead for you at the end of your briefing, chuck. i know the president has made brief on the shooting at lax. us who he was briefed by the white house, anybody he may have talked to outside of the briefing, and you have any sense of what actually happened in this and it's -- t his instance? >> the president has been briefed on the incident at the los angeles national airport by his deputy chief of staff, and he will be regularly updated on unfolding events there. at this point, the lead is lapd, but we are obviously at the
federal level in touch with law enforcement officials on the ground and will -- the president will be updated as the afternoon progresses. >> anything you can say about what he has been told? what the understanding is on what has happened? >> no, i have no more information than what i think you are learning from reports out of l.a. right now to convey. >> on a separate topic, intelligence officials -- any comment on u.s. drone strikes on friday? can you confirm? >> no, i do not speed about dorational matters, but -- i not speak about operational matters, but i would have to retreat to the department of defense for that. >> edward snowden seems to be reaching out to some other countries for help in trying to get the u.s. to drop these charges against them. if the u.s. talking to any countries, germany in particular, to tell them what the u.s. would prefer they do in
is currently situation? >> i am not aware of any conversations like that. mr. snowden has been charged with crimes, and he should return to the united states and face those charges and avail himself of all the rights available to defendants in this country. each crimes with which he is charged are very serious. it is certainly our view that the right thing to do in this case is for him to return or be returned to the united states to face those charges. and to have his day in court. beyond that, our position is that theas, which is unauthorized release of classified information, especially of the nature that we are talking about here, is harmful to the national security
and to the united states. >> do you think it complicates for allies like germany, for example, their dealings with them, perhaps, knowing that u.s. officials had been spying on their communications, their chancellor? >> our view on what mr. snowden did i think is well known. tensionsomes to the caused by the disclosures that have appeared, because of those unauthorized leaks, we are handling those issues in our direct double medical medications with germany and other nations and allies. diplomatic medications with germany and other nations and allies. the communications go to the heart of the overall review of our intelligence collection activities that the president has ordered up. and it is underway now.
>> was the president aware that someone who was advised as we're talking about the idea of replacing joe biden with hillary clinton? >> i'm glad you asked because i think it is important to know that campaigns and bolsters as part of campaigns say a lot of things there and what i can tell you without a doubt is that the president never considered that and had anyone brought that idea to him, he would have lasted out of the room. i think former chief of staff bill daley said it wants this morning. and here is why -- joe biden has been an asset to this president in two campaigns and throughout five years of this administration. weather was handling the implementation of the recovery act, handling the very sensitive and important portfolio of iraq in the first term, or his key role in working with congress on
some very important negotiations, joe biden has been an excellent partner in the president's view. and then as a candidate, i think if you look at the role he played in 2012, and you look at the job he did in his debate, i think there is little doubt that he was an and or ms. asset to the entire cause and enterprise. ormous asset. that is how the president feels. he believes that hillary clinton did a magnificent job as secretary of state. he believes he made the right choice and running mate, he made the right choice in secretary of state, and when it comes to 2012, i think the fact that the president became the first person to win more than 50% of the vote consecutively since ronald reagan tells you a lot about how effective that ticket was. >> you are saying he was aware
of this or was not -- >. i think it yet the people who were more directly running neck and pain, they might know the answer. i am not aware that he was aware of it. for the fact that any suggestion that people quoted in the precipice was under consideration was not something he took seriously ever. >>te secretary, secretary -- separately, secretary sebelius said she did not rely on this data, but we have since learned that only six people signed up on the first day -- >> for my republican committee is that there are notes out there from a contractor that make estimates about figures related to enrollees in the early process. what is important to know is that the website was not functioning very well on october 1 or october 2. in fact, it had not been functioning well in the first
month since the launch. that is what the president is focused on. making sure that everything is done to bring the website up to the standards he has for it. the implication from this disclosure is that the website was not working effectively october 1, i think that is a dog bites man story. we know that. compiledwe have fully data about enrollment in the middle of this month for october, we will release a, which is what we said prior to launch. but it is also instructive to remember that setting aside any problems with the website, we knew and told you in advance that there would be low in roman figures initially because we --w that's from experience low and roman figures initially because we knew that from experience from the massachusetts precedents. inyou look at what happened
massachusetts, something like 0.3% of what would turn out to be the enrollment figure in that insurance reform program is what they thought the first appeared 123 people. we knew it was going to be a slow build. it is no question it has been made more challenging by the poorly functioning website, and that is on us, and that is why we are dedicating the resources and the brain power to get it fixed. the central issue here, as we talked about before, is not can we build a great website -- it is can we make sure that the american people who deserve affordable, quality health insurance are able to buy it? and that is why the president is so frustrated by the website. more frustrated than anyone else, i think it is fair to say. i will do what i did the other day move up and back. you, jay.ank
is there a particular problem that it is trying to address? >> climate change. [laughter] that is a very important problem. i think this is part of the president's overall is to address this challenge that our nation in the entire world is facing. he established a tax force -- a task force on how the government can respond to the needs of communities nationwide that are dealing with the impacts of climate change. what is important about this task force is that it is basically asking state and local officials who are on the ground to respondwith how to or prepare for the changes brought about by alterations in our climate so that they can feed back ideas and suggestions for best practices through the task force. so as part of an overall approach to the program that's the problem, i think it demonstrates that we are continuing to take it on.
from a righty of angles. -- joe and then john. >> you know if these numbers from the war room meeting are accurate? >> a statement is available and where they believe it comes from -- i think these are rough figures, notes that was a snap in time. i think the secretary testified in a lengthy hearing the other day, you know, we are going to assemble accurate data and provide its monthly. i think one of the reasons why it is important to do it on a monthly basis is to make sure that the data is checked and is accurate. varietyming in from a of places via the website and states that are running their own exchanges, from applicants who go through mail or go through in person centers or through the call centers. hhs or refer you to
cms on that. the whole point, regardless of how statistically accurate those numbers turn out to be, we know and acknowledge that the website has been a problem. >> do you think there is a transparency problem for the administration? andhat the secretary and i others have said is we will provide enrollment agers on a monthly asus which is consistent with -- on a monthly basis which is consistent with other things, and we want to make sure it is accurate. we need to verify it and make sure it reflects what is actually happening. on novemberyou now 1, we do not expect those numbers to be high, and they will be lower because